search for: headc57d_olut_set

The base917c_format isn't exported, so make it static to avoid the following warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/base917c.c:26:1: warning: symbol 'base917c_format' was not declared. Should it be static? Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/base917c.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

...clock * 1000); /*XXX: HEAD_USAGE_BOUNDS, doesn't belong here. */ evo_mthd(push, 0x2030 + (head->base.index * 0x400), 1); - evo_data(push, 0x00001014); + evo_data(push, 0x00001024); evo_kick(push, core); } } @@ -196,6 +195,8 @@ headc57d = { .olut_identity = true, .olut_set = headc57d_olut_set, .olut_clr = headc57d_olut_clr, + .lut_size = 1024, + .lut_chk = head907d_lut_chk, .curs_layout = head917d_curs_layout, .curs_format = headc37d_curs_format, .curs_set = headc37d_curs_set, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c index 994d...

...== 256) + if (size == 256) asyh->olut.load = headc57d_olut_load_8; else asyh->olut.load = headc57d_olut_load; + return true; } static void @@ -194,6 +197,7 @@ headc57d = { .mode = headc57d_mode, .olut = headc57d_olut, .olut_identity = true, + .olut_size = 1024, .olut_set = headc57d_olut_set, .olut_clr = headc57d_olut_clr, .curs_layout = head917d_curs_layout, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c index 994def4fd51a..4e95ca5604ab 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/lut.c @@...

Hello, while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev". I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine for me,

Hello, while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev". I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine for me,